What would a transitional fossil look like?

You misspelled "due to the mechanisms of evolution".You obviously know nothing about the magnitude of genetic changes. Almost all of them are teeny and weeny.

Yep, it took millions and billions of years because the changes are teeny and weeny.Any changes that didn't result in a viable creature didn't get passed on A small percentage of them accumulated to produce "coherent new creatures". If you want to argue otherwise, show your math. Your argument from ignorance is irrelevant.

A few hundred thousand years is enough for significant changes. Show your calculations. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

And the same as cats.Plus, humans and chimps are the same by your criteria. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

They are far more similar than dogs and cats. Your ignorant description of your fantasy notwithstanding.

Yeah, it's easy to find people as ignorant as you that will cheer you on. But here you are.No, that's not at all what you said scientists would agree with.

Just like your bald assertion that the differnces are great.But mine is true

quote:

---

According to [Kevin Hunt, director of the Human Origins and Primate Evolution Lab at Indiana University], if you shave a chimp and take a photo of its body from the neck to the waist, "at first glance you wouldn't really notice that it isn't human."

---

Chimps vs. Humans: How Are We Different? | Live Science

[qqs]and if the ToE were true the structure would change too.[/qs] Not necessarily, especially if the environment didn't change much.

Except they matter when comparing chimps and humans. Make up your mind.

Oh, we get it. You can't stand being kin to no ape, so you have to deny the blindingly obvious. We are prejudiced in favor of facts.

For example chimps and humans. Identical, not merely similar, except varying in proportions: size and length and that sort of thing.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Claws aren't structural. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

It's apparent neither you nor your reference's author know what a nested hierarchy is. A cladogram is not one, and does not show the relationships embodied in a nested hierarchy.A nested hierarchy can be defined as a grouping in which all subsets are completely contained within "parent" sets.Many creationists have tried to make a nested hierarchy of vehicles of various sorts. All have failed. Once you try to jam vehicles into a nested hierarchy of any noticeable size, you quickly find examples that don't fit. That's because vehicles (and pretty much any group of man-made objects) transfer features between groups constantly. Somebody invents a hydraulic disk brake on one model of car. Soon they're on trucks and all sorts of wheeled vehicles. Now they're on my son's high-end bicycle (and they're infinitely better than rim brakes).For example, Michael Denton in his first book: See the problem? Can you fix it? Could you then show where the V-22 Osprey, a Diesel submarine, and an AAV-P7/A1 Assault Amphibious Vehicle would fit?

Thanks for confirming my claim. They don't fit in Denton's hierarchy, that's the point. Just as his hierarchy isn't nested because the subset "diesel" is not completely contained within one parent set. I've seen dozens of creationists try to shuffle and rename items to find any more than a trivial nested hierarchy of vehicles. And I briefly explained why they can't do it. Thus I predict the next one will also fail

Duplicate . Edited by JonF, : No reason given.